I’m aware of that concept, but I’m having a hard time understanding how that applies to the Fediverse. It seems like we have an inherent protection from that tactic, even if we disregard defederation as an option.
You know how Apple has extended SMS with iMessage? Like that.
In other words, they take something open and established like activitypub, and then build all sorts of cool features on top of it, but those features impose lock-in.
Eg. Maybe they make it so there’s some way of attaching media directly to posts, but only if the post is both posted and viewed from a Meta instance. And then, in a few years once they’ve become dominant due to everyone switching over to their platform out of fomo of those features, they break compatibility with activitypub and ruin the underlying structure of the fediverse.
Wouldn’t that just mean Facebook splits away from the fediverse into their own thing? The rest of the fediverse that don’t want anything to do with them would still keep existing just like it does now?
To be honest I really don’t mind if the users that want to use Facebook leave Lemmy and go to Threads. That just means that there’s less people here but the ones that stay have values closer to mine.
That actually doesn’t seem to give any context of HOW it could work for the Fediverse. All I see is “we are certain to lose”, but doesn’t go into what sort of mechanisms or tactics could be implemented to do a takeover.
What I would do if I were Zuck is the following: First I’d federate and leech a little bit off the pre-existing community. Then, I’d start buffing out my version. I could outpace the open source team easily if I wanted, adding things like video hosting, that are too resource-intensive for smaller Instances. I’d basically compete in features and polish, which are very important to less tech savvy consumers.
In the meantime, I’d be tinkering with my own Instance, seeing how much more data can be squeezed out of the Fediverse. I’d probably buy some of the largest Instances and assimilate them, just to keep the rest of the space feeling small compared to mine. Let brand loyalty do the rest.
Any time they come up with a new feature I like, I take it. I don’t share mine though, I don’t share anything I’m not forced to. The goal is to cap their growth, basically squashing awareness of them by making sure that when average people think Fediverse, they think Meta. The rest of it is just weird tech hobby junk for nerds.
Which is irrational. Threads already has five times more users than the fediverse. There’s literally no reason for them to waste time trying to harm ActivityPub. Personally, I won’t be surprised if they shelf and ultimately cancel their plans to implement ActivityPub because there’s literally no reason for them to waste their time, especially when everyone in the community is throwing shade at them.
They want to avoid Meta from repeating history:
Embrace, Extend and Extinguish
I’m aware of that concept, but I’m having a hard time understanding how that applies to the Fediverse. It seems like we have an inherent protection from that tactic, even if we disregard defederation as an option.
You know how Apple has extended SMS with iMessage? Like that.
In other words, they take something open and established like activitypub, and then build all sorts of cool features on top of it, but those features impose lock-in.
Eg. Maybe they make it so there’s some way of attaching media directly to posts, but only if the post is both posted and viewed from a Meta instance. And then, in a few years once they’ve become dominant due to everyone switching over to their platform out of fomo of those features, they break compatibility with activitypub and ruin the underlying structure of the fediverse.
Wouldn’t that just mean Facebook splits away from the fediverse into their own thing? The rest of the fediverse that don’t want anything to do with them would still keep existing just like it does now?
To be honest I really don’t mind if the users that want to use Facebook leave Lemmy and go to Threads. That just means that there’s less people here but the ones that stay have values closer to mine.
https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html
Here’s an article that explains how it can still happen with decentralized platforms
That actually doesn’t seem to give any context of HOW it could work for the Fediverse. All I see is “we are certain to lose”, but doesn’t go into what sort of mechanisms or tactics could be implemented to do a takeover.
Am I missing something?
What I would do if I were Zuck is the following: First I’d federate and leech a little bit off the pre-existing community. Then, I’d start buffing out my version. I could outpace the open source team easily if I wanted, adding things like video hosting, that are too resource-intensive for smaller Instances. I’d basically compete in features and polish, which are very important to less tech savvy consumers.
In the meantime, I’d be tinkering with my own Instance, seeing how much more data can be squeezed out of the Fediverse. I’d probably buy some of the largest Instances and assimilate them, just to keep the rest of the space feeling small compared to mine. Let brand loyalty do the rest.
Any time they come up with a new feature I like, I take it. I don’t share mine though, I don’t share anything I’m not forced to. The goal is to cap their growth, basically squashing awareness of them by making sure that when average people think Fediverse, they think Meta. The rest of it is just weird tech hobby junk for nerds.
Which is irrational. Threads already has five times more users than the fediverse. There’s literally no reason for them to waste time trying to harm ActivityPub. Personally, I won’t be surprised if they shelf and ultimately cancel their plans to implement ActivityPub because there’s literally no reason for them to waste their time, especially when everyone in the community is throwing shade at them.